TB5-01719

TB5-01719

Because the USA was designated under s.109.1(1) of IRPA on the date of the RPD decision, s.110(2)(d.1) precluded any appeal to the RAD; the RAD therefore lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeals.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB5-01719
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Jurisdiction Determination
Outcome
Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Designated Country, Jurisdiction, Appeal Bar Under IRPA S.110(2)(d.1)
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Designated Country Jurisdiction Appeal Bar Under IRPA S.110(2)(d.1)

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Jurisdiction Determination

  1. 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear appeals where claimants are nationals of a country designated under s.109.1(1) of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the USA designation bars appeal under s.110(2)(d.1) of IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

Because the USA was designated under s.109.1(1) of IRPA on the date of the RPD decision, s.110(2)(d.1) precluded any appeal to the RAD; the RAD therefore lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeals.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction